The Creators of the New Big Ten Logo Respond

By Johnny Ginter on December 27, 2010 at 12:03p

Comments Show All Comments

RBuck's picture

They don't get it. It's the Carolina Blue, idiots!

Long live the southend.

poguemahone's picture

I may have failed Math 151 and thus relegated myself to a fake humanities major, but I'm pretty sure that's not arithmetic; it's simple counting


Arithmetic or arithmetics (from the Greek word ἀριθμός = number) is the oldest and most elementary branch of mathematics, used by almost everyone, for tasks ranging from simple day-to-day counting to advanced science and business calculations

Oh well, at least I didn't sign off on that horse pucky logo 

Poe McKnoe's picture

The 'B10' logo is good.  I like it.  Makes sense.  You can put it on flash drives. Whoopee.

It's the 'B1G TEN' logo that people hate because it's ugly.  I bet you they came up with the B10 first then tried to make it work in a full logo.  It doesn't.  Why is this so hard for them to understand?

Captain Buckeye's picture

I agree.  The black and blue B10 logo is real good.  The other one sucks.

btalbert25's picture

it still cracks me up that people give a damn about the logo.  It's not like people are going to quit watching games.  No one is going to refrain from buying their favorite B10 teams' gear.  I doubt there will be a refusal to watch the BTN because of the logo. 

yrro's picture

No, but we do have to listen to everyone else make fun of how retarded they are. It makes us look bad.

btalbert25's picture

I guess I just don't see any conference logo as great or stupid.  I don't know.  I think it makes the conference look worse when the fans get in an uproar about logos and division names.

blazers34's picture

the problem was, IMO, that the Big 10 made kind of a spectacle about the unveiling of the logo.  Everyone was expecting 'more', whatever that would have been

Pam's picture

What doesn't?  Face it, if you don't want to be made fun of, stop being a fan of the Buckyes. 

Bucksfan's picture

Maybe the problem was that they invested too much time and effort into the conference's history of "dull football," instead of doing something to rebirth the conference for the 21st Century to keep up with the SEC or Pac-10.  They went with the most boring look possible, something that wants to scream 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust, instead of doing something slick and competitive.

The conference may transcend arithmetic, but it doesn't transcend the need for an eye-popping design.  Any high school freshman could find Block Bold font on Microsoft Word and come up with the same thing.

And I completely disagree that a blue-black combination looks good.  Those are two colors that never go together.  Ever.  It's cold and boring and looks like a bruise.

btalbert25's picture

I guess, I have to ask, what conference has a great looking emblem that makes their conference look progressive and in the 21rst century?  The only one I can even pictures is the SEC's logo, and I just don't see what makes it so great.  It's a conference logo, it has nothing to do with why people tune in to the games.  A guy in Arizona that has no particular tie to any school isn't going to decided to be a fan or not be a fan based on the conference logo.  They could've put it in Braille for all I care.  It dictates absolutely nothing about the sports and teams or how they play and who watches them and buys their junk. 

Jason Priestas's picture

The SEC logo is wack -- if that were rolled out today, it would have received much of the same hate that the new Big Ten logo received.

The Pac10, on the other hand, nailed it:

Kurt's picture

I disagree, the Pac-10/12 logo will not age well.
I've come to like the B10 logo. It is simple, clean and modern, and isn't overly gimmicky and thus I think it will age much better. And yet the boldness pays respect to the history of te conference. The blue is fine, I can imagine it was critical to select a color that any of the schools their own, that's a pretty sizeable limitation.
I can imagine the designers are frustrated to hear so much backlash from (mostly) people who know little to nothing about graphic design...but then, that's the reality of art and design, everyone will be all up in arms for awhile, then the same people will love it 10-15 years on.

Jason Priestas's picture

I disagree with your disagreement, so there!  But seriously, you made a point about design aging well in 10-15 years and that's exactly what the Pac10 logo will do. Much like the Green Bay logo, which was a pretty newfangled font/mark at the time.

741's picture

I think the Pac-10 logo is cool. Am kind of warming up to the "B1G" logo, but really don't like the full "B1G TEN" version, and I'm definitely in the "that shade of blue is ugly" camp.

poguemahone's picture

Yeah, PAC-10 logo is pretty sweet, and I think the majority of pac-10 partisans like it. The Big 12, ACC, and SEC are meh, so the Big 10 had a chance to make a statement. Unfortunately, that statement was "can it be 1970 again?"

Kurt's picture

Yep, ultimately it's art and is subjective to countless opinions, we'll just see who does a redesign first!
I work in the design field and I can honestly sympathize with the designers, and know that often they're doing their best work when people don't immediately like something.
A factor which is completely out of their hands is the mental perception fans and media project onto it as a result of on-field (court, rink...) performance. If it's as good as the SEC's the way people look at it will be different.

OHIOinME's picture

It will look really cool on a championship ring.  No, really it would. 

poguemahone's picture

The SEC logo is so WCW. I don't know why, but every time I see it, I think Eric Bischoff, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and NWO

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Regarding the PAC-10 logo:

Does anyone else see a french-horn?

Just sayin'....

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

Bucksfan's picture

That's great, BT...and I also think you're one of the few fans on this website that keeps harping that you don't care, though you seem to keep continually pointing out that it has no bearing on whether or not people will watch the games.  You may very well be correct, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a wasted opportunity to do something smart for a change.

The SEC conference logo is a HUGE much so that ESPN adopted it into a new ESPN-SEC logo.  You will not be seeing that with our logo any time soon because it'd look so stupid.

Then there's the point that the Big Ten Network has its own logo, which doesn't look like the new logo.  So, now there's a discrepancy between the conference's own cable channel and the conference's athletic logo.  It's about as logical as holding a football game at a stadium that's too small for a football field....wait.

Look, we can go round and round about the travesty that is this new logo.  It's a widely panned piece of garbage that looks ugly in all facets, doesn't reflect the right #...again...and people in the conference are sick and tired of a "brand" that requires extra explanation.  It's tedious and boring, when it should at the very least be self-explanatory.  The fans have spoken.

I'll tell you what we could do.  I bet if we put this up for a competition amongst the starving art/design school students across the conference you'd find someone who would easily ruin whatever million-dollar consulting firm was put in charge of this bullshit.  The conference didn't use its own resources, which would have a) cost the conference nothing by having it be student-run and b) would have been 10X better.

btalbert25's picture

I agree it looks stupid, but so did the old one.  People are all up in arms that it makes us look bad and we are stuck in the past, and the SEC is going to make fun of us.  Well get over it.  The logo has no bearing on the other conferences making fun of us.  How Big 10 teams  look on the field has everything to do with it.  Start winning games against tough competition, start having more than 3 good teams every year.  That's the stuff we need to worry about, not a logo.

tomcollins's picture

You don't like the old one?  I thought it was fine.

You are correct that winning on the football field is the absolute most important thing.  Getting more quality teams deep and winning the big games on the top are the absolute keys to achieving that.

But Leaders & Legends is pretty awful.

BuckPirate1981's picture

Wasn't Brutus and just about every great mascot slash logo ever in collegiate athletics a student contest at one point? Wonder if there's a reason for that

OHIOinME's picture

It will look really cool on a championship ring.  No, really it would.

Bucksfan's picture

I was already sick of Penn State getting extra attention as being the 11th school every time I entered a conversation about college football.  Now I have to say that Penn State and Nebraska are the two extra teams.

WTF?!  Does the SEC have to explain that Arkansas and South Carolina are the newest members?  No.  Will the Pac-12 fans have to explain that Utah and Colorado are newest members?  No.  Did they have to do it over the last 20 years after the Arizona schools joined?  No.  These schools may be "new," but they were provided seamless integration from day 1.

By keeping the Big 10 the Big 10 just because it's a "brand" defeats the whole purpose of including more than 10.  It's not 12 equals, it's 10 plus 2 = 10 plus an explanation about Penn State and Nebraska every time.  Like a 10*.  That's weak.  It's weak because they're afraid of change.

Rename it!  Great Heartland Conference, whatever...something original that allows flexibility.  Put your damn minds to it.  It's just no longer the Big Ten to anyone.  Maybe we could have kept it there while searching for the 12th school, and we lived with it.  But now it's 12 schools that span from the east coast to the edge of the Rocky Mountain states, surround the Great Lakes bordering Canada.  It's a regional beheamouth full of beheamouth schools with a lot of pride for being of that region.  Tap into it.  Find a new identity.  Clinging to something that happened 3-10 decades ago is unfortunate.  If you're not ready to move on, then you're part of the problem.  And that's why the Legends and Leaders thing was such a joke - because what kind of shitty leaders dare force words like "conference equity" down the throats of some of the most well-educated alumni in the nation?  Fuck the word "equity."

poguemahone's picture

The Great Heartland Conference

The Mellencamp Division vs. The Seger Division

I think I might prefer that to Big 10 and Leaders and Legends

Bucksfan's picture

Yeah, I can see it now: the new logo will be a pink house, and the mascot will be a superhot chick in a white shirt, underwear, and sunglasses singing "I like that Old Time Rock n' Roll."  Shit, why not?  We already tried Baby Blue and it was a colossal failure.

In all seriousness, they could have come up with something that isn't stuck in neutral.  Delaney rambled on about tradition and history, and fucking forgot about how the conference didn't always have a # in it.  Michigan's fight song still refers to it as the West.  I say go back to something like that.  #'s obviously confuse people when it's inaccurate.  Hell, split the it the Midwest 12.  We are the Midwest...there are 12 of us.

Again, it couldn't have coincided with a better example to numerical bufoonery than the Wrigley Field disaster.  This is the same conference that fielded the first man to walk on the moon, as well as an entire Apollo mission.  If they were off by a couple of feet, they would still be on their way to Mars right now.

There are thousands of words in the English language, and hundreds of creative minds around.  The word or numeral 10 has no place in a conference of 12 teams.  It didn't have a place in a conference with 11 teams, but we sort of tolerated it with that clever logo.  Now it's just a travesty.

God, I hate this topic.  I get so angry.

Kurt's picture

You just need to abstract the word ten. That easy. If anything proves we're well beyond simple arithmetic.

BuckPirate1981's picture

Again, student contest! Damn I should have gone into consulting.